Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 363 and 376(AB) of IPC and Sections 5(M) and 6 of POCSO Act. 

Judgement By: High Court of Gujarat

Judge/Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani

Fact

In 2021, a man lured a 6-year-old girl into his house by promising her tamarind. Once inside, he raped her and gave her ten rupees to keep her quiet. The girl’s mother found her crying with bloodstained clothes and filed a police report. The lower “Special Court” found the man guilty and sentenced him to death.

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 363 (Section 137 BNS) and 376(AB) (Section 64 of BNS) of IPC and Sections 5(M) and 6 of POCSO Act. 

Issues Raised

Whether this specific crime was so “rare” that the man deserved to be executed, or if he should be given a chance to live out his life in prison instead?

Arguments

The State argued that the crime was brutal and the death penalty was fair. The Defense argued that the man had no past criminal record, was behaving well in jail, and could potentially change for the better.

Judgement

The High Court lowered the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The judges explained that the death penalty is only for the “rarest of rare” cases. Because the man had no prior crimes and the lower court didn’t check if he could be reformed, the High Court decided that life in prison was the more appropriate legal punishment.

Click here to VIEW the full judgment.